redefining marriage

Utah’s Opposition To Killing DOMA Stems From Some Major Polygamy Bitterness

Arguing against the federal court in Boston striking down part of DOMA, conservative columnist Cal Thomas reveals he’s still hung up on the Supreme Court’s 1878 ruling banning polygamy.

If state law gets to trump federal wishes when it comes to marriage, as Judge Joseph L. Tauro decided, how can anyone sit idly by while the 132-year-old decision in Reynolds v. United States gets ignored? Not Thomas!

A New York Times editorial says of DOMA, “There is no rational basis for discriminating against same-sex couples.” Really? Has the newspaper forgotten the federal government’s “discrimination” against Utah when it forbade the territory from entering the Union until it outlawed polygamy?

In 1878, the Supreme Court declared in Reynolds v. United States that polygamy was not protected by the Constitution.

If the federal government could reject polygamy then as a means of promoting the general welfare, why can’t it block attempts to redefine marriage now? If marriage is redefined by courts, what is to stop anyone from declaring a “right” to any relationship they wish to enter and demanding “equal protection” under the Constitution?

I think we can all agree the answer to that question is: Nothing! Well, except for the financial burden of taking one of these CLEARLY FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS all the way to the Supreme Court.

[Salt Lake Tribune]